I've been racking my brains to figure out exactly what I want to do for Annie's dress for Tombstone. She wants an outfit for the Madame category, and she wants it in brown. I finally settled on this:

This dress has so much potential. The design is a simple polanaise with a natural form bustle and a lace ruffle on the edges. The skirt has a nice box pleat, complemented by a simpler ruffle in a more expensive fabric - perhaps a satin. To make it worthy of a madame, I will just give it a lower neckline. Everything else will be the same. I had thought to make this out of a home decor fabric they have at Hobby Lobby that looks like watered silk, but is made of 57% cotton and 43% polyester. But that's a bit heavy, and the dress itself is not made of any fine fabric, so I'm leaning towards a high-quality cotton. I'm going to invite Annie and a couple of others to meet me at JoAnn's so we can all find fabric for the three (!) different dresses I'm making this summer.
Does anyone know how to do those box pleats? I'll look around for some instructions, they don't look difficult.

This is a picture of Aimee. That's all I know about her, except the fact that she is an actress. I loved the dress she is wearing, and I hope to replicate it at some point.
I like using actresses as inspiration. When trying to find something for a "shady lady" to wear, I want to be accurate without without being boring. Actresses were photographed in all sorts of outfits, from sedate, modest dresses to outlandish costumes that showed off their legs and other charms. The actress photos of the 1860s-70s depict them as respectable women, wearing perhaps a low cut neckline on a ball gown, and seated or standing very demurely for the camera. We only know they are actresses because the picture is labeled, or if the actress is obviously posed as no common woman might. But later in the century, actresses realized the advantages of marketing themselves through photographs and advertising. Photos were easier to have made, so they could spread their images everywhere. Lily Langtry and Lillian Russell were two professional actresses of renowned beauty whose pictures could be found everywhere. On the flip-side, there were lots of would-be actresses whose pictures might be found only in a pack of cigarettes. She was still admired, though not as respected - no one respected a woman whose outfit consisted of tights, "hot pants", a low cut bodice, and a cape. But really, I don't think the women who posed for these were looking for respectablity.
What's interesting about Miss Aimee's dress is that it has the cut of a ball gown - a low neckline and no sleeves - without all the bustle and frou-frou that would be seen at the waistline and below. I like the two-color effect, and the flowers add a nice touch. I think that this is a costume for some particular character in a play or opera, especially since she is wearing a powdered wig (not fashionable in the late 19th century), but it is still so very 1880s that it could easily be worn as a evening gown. I think what really marks it as 1880s is all those darn buttons! I really need to find a good way to sew button holes.
I haven't decided what my next project will be, at least the next one for myself. I want to make another corset, but I don't NEED a corset. But by that argument, I wouldn't make any more outfits because I don't need them either. I do have three projects yet to be started for other people. While I don't make these to sell them, I do take pride in our theatrical troupe's appearance, so I am willing to make outfits for some of our less needlework-inclined ladies. One of them is a corset, one will be a gown fit for a wealthy madame, and one will be a saloon girl. Now when I say saloon girl, I don't mean Miss Kitty from Gunsmoke. I mean something like this:

This is a Tobacco Card, probably from about the late 1880's or early 1890's. Tobacco Cards were like the Playboy of their day. Lot's of "actresses" (the term very loosely used) in scanty costumes. These cards came with tobacco products, so they weren't very big. But there were lots of them. I imagine a lady of ill repute, who smokes, of course, might look at these for costume ideas. Many were too risque, though, and would have been considered pure porn. Men liked them, though, so they thrived and endured. There is always a market for sexy pin-ups.
Anyway, Miss West is wearing a sleeveless bodice and what amounts to a draped overskirt without the underskirt. Shocking, but very becoming. I haven't found the fabric I want yet, but my client wants it in red and gold. I'll keep you posted.
Last post I mentioned how the bodice of my new outfit was similar to one worn by a woman with attitude. Here she is.

Most women in photos of this time are rather meek, standing straight in front of the camera, or leaning on a chair. They are very serious. Some are dreamy, some are wooden, but very few present you with an attitude. This one was taken in Scotland, probably about 1881. Her dress and skirt are velvet, with smocked satin trim. I bet it's a deep red, but I'm just guessing. The bodice is tight all the way down, so there is no bustle here at all. There is a bit of drapery in the back, but from this angle it is difficult to tell how complex the design is. She has a little lace at the neck and cuffs, and a small, tasteful broach on the collar. All in all, a beautifully understated yet elegant outfit. If I had enough velvet, and lived someplace not so hot, I would consider reproducing this one.
This is the first in a series of posts on certain photos in my collection. Every time I look at them, I see something new.

This particular photo is from the mid 1880's. I had already decided to make the current project when I saw this picture on eBay. I had decided to make this outfit because I found this wonderful light-weight cotton plaid fabric, as well as the blue cotton blend I'm using for the first bodice. Plaid is very period. And light-weight is always good in El Paso. Anyway, I saw this picture and had to have it.
The draped overskirt is only in front. Realistically it was probably because she didn't have enough fabric for the back. People made do just as much as I do now. The underskirt has neat little knife pleats, and it is rather short - definitely for walking or other practical activities. I don't believe it has a true bustle, but there is enough fullness in the back to suggest the time period when they were about to explode back on the fashion scene. On the other hand, it may be that bustles were already in fashion, but she was too practical to add one to her outfit - as evidenced, perhaps, by the length of her skirt.
Her bodice is a French Bodice - it has a different fabric in the front than the rest of it. The buttons are shaped like little flowers, but I can't tell what they're made of. I find the peplum at the bottom of the bodice rather out of place, but not weird. The bodice is finished with a high-necked collar that was very common to this time period. It was usually adorned with a pin or broach of some kind. She actually has a bar pin similar to one I already own. She is also wearing earrings, but I can't tell what they look like.
I like this outfit because it is so simple on one hand, yet so representative of the time period on the other. This is not a rich woman, nor is she a clothes horse. This is probably her best outfit, because you didn't spend all that money on have a picture made wearing everyday clothes. Chances are good that she made it herself. Very nice.
Finding ideas for new outfits can be daunting, not because it is so hard to find images, but because there are so many! Basically, though, there are two main sources: fashion illustrations and photographs. I do enjoy the fashion illustrations, and there are tons of them - Godey's Ladies Book, Harper's Bazaar, Peterson's, etc. But while these pictures are fun to look at, they do not represent the fashions of what women were actually wearing. Think of it as looking at the Haute Couture fashion layouts in Vogue. Sure we like to look, but how many of us really dress that way?
When looking for accurate fashions of the 19th century, I always go to the photographs. For one thing, they are are much easier to recreate, being less expensive and time consuming. These are the dresses that women sewed with their own hands, and paid for with their own money. They tend to be simpler and more pragmatic in design. So I get my ideas from photographs. I don't ignore the illustrations, though. Just as I imagine dress makers did back then, I go to them to get ideas for frills, flounces, draperies, laces, ribbons and other decorative additions. But try to make one? No, I have too many other outfits to make!
I spend a lot of time on eBay looking at Cabinet Cards and Cartes de Visites. You can find some really interesting photos there. And they aren't too expensive, usually, unless it's a photo of authentic cowboys. They get pricey very quickly. But there are a couple of things that irk me. One is that so many people don't know the difference between a Cabinet Card and a Cartes de Visites (CDV). It's simple really - cabinet cards are bigger, and CDVs are calling card size. The information is easily obtainable online. But so many sellers just don't bother to do the least bit of research.
What's worse is when these sellers describe women as "dressed in black" or "in mourning," just because they are wearing dark clothing. Very few of them were actually wearing black. They were wearing forest green, and burgundy, and deep red, azure blue, purple, chocolate brown, multi-colored plaid. If you read descriptions of the period, you find that there were just as many fashion victims back then as there are now - women who mixed plaids and paisleys, reds and greens, and all sorts of garish combinations in between. Granted they had no florescent colors - and a good thing too! - but they did wear colorful clothing. So when looking at Victorian photographs, remember that our great grandmothers dressed in colors, too.